Suppr超能文献

使用偏倚风险第2版(RoB2)工具评定为低偏倚的随机对照试验中的选择偏倚风险

Selection Bias Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials Rated as Low Bias Using Risk of Bias, Version 2 (RoB2) Tool.

作者信息

Mickenautsch Steffen, Yengopal Veerasamy

机构信息

Faculty of Dentistry, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, ZAF.

Community Dentistry, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Johannesburg, ZAF.

出版信息

Cureus. 2024 Jul 1;16(7):e63581. doi: 10.7759/cureus.63581. eCollection 2024 Jul.

Abstract

Our study aimed to establish the risk of selection bias in randomized controlled trials (RCT) that were overall rated as having "low bias" risk according to Cochrane's Risk of Bias, version 2 (RoB 2) tool. A systematic literature search of current systematic reviews of RCTs was conducted. From the identified reviews, RCTs with overall "high bias" and "low bias" RoB 2 risk ratings were extracted. All RCTs were statistically tested for selection bias risk. From the test results, true positive, true negative, false positive, or false negative ratings were established, and the false omission rate (FOR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed. Subgroup analysis was conducted by computing the negative likelihood ratio (-LR) concerning RoB 2 domain 1 ratings: bias arising from the randomization process. A total of 1070 published RCTs (median publication year: 2018; interquartile range: 2013-2020) were identified and tested. We found that 7.61% of all "low bias" (RoB 2)-rated RCTs were of high selection bias risk (FOR 7.61%; 95% CI: 6.31%-9.14%) and that the likelihood for high selection bias risk in "low bias" (RoB 2 domain 1)-rated RCTs was 6% higher than that for low selection bias risk (-LR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.98-1.15). These findings raise issues about the validity of "low bias" risk ratings using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool as well as about the validity of some of the results from recently published RCTs. Our results also suggest that the likelihood of a "low bias" risk-rated body of clinical evidence being actually bias-free is low, and that generalization based on a limited, pre-specified set of appraisal criteria may not justify a high level of confidence that such evidence reflects the true treatment effect.

摘要

我们的研究旨在确定根据Cochrane偏倚风险第2版(RoB 2)工具总体评定为具有“低偏倚”风险的随机对照试验(RCT)中选择偏倚的风险。我们对当前RCT的系统评价进行了系统的文献检索。从已识别的评价中,提取了RoB 2风险评级为总体“高偏倚”和“低偏倚”的RCT。对所有RCT进行选择偏倚风险的统计学检验。根据检验结果,确定真阳性、真阴性、假阳性或假阴性评级,并计算95%置信区间(CI)的假遗漏率(FOR)。通过计算与RoB 2第1领域评级相关的阴性似然比(-LR)进行亚组分析:随机化过程产生的偏倚。共识别并测试了1070项已发表的RCT(中位发表年份:2018年;四分位间距:2013 - 2020年)。我们发现,所有RoB 2评级为“低偏倚”的RCT中有7.61%存在高选择偏倚风险(FOR 7.61%;95% CI:6.31% - 9.14%),并且RoB 2第1领域评级为“低偏倚”的RCT中存在高选择偏倚风险的可能性比低选择偏倚风险高6%(-LR:1.06;95% CI:0.98 - 1.15)。这些发现引发了关于使用Cochrane的RoB 2工具进行“低偏倚”风险评级的有效性以及近期发表的一些RCT结果的有效性的问题。我们的结果还表明,RoB 2风险评级为“低偏倚”的临床证据实际上无偏倚的可能性较低,并且基于有限的、预先指定的一组评估标准进行的归纳可能无法证明对这类证据反映真实治疗效果具有高度信心是合理的。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0285/11290317/975e256468eb/cureus-0016-00000063581-i01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验